The significance isn't the crime itself, that you were tried, or what
the verdict was. The significance is you falsified your application by
omitting the fact that it occurred. Lying about it (or anything) on you
application is a term of dismissal. It's that simple.
JD Austin wrote:
> I'm glad I don't work somewhere like that. If I was
> acquitted/exonerated of a crime I wouldn't list it on an application
> either! I can't think of a reason anyone would. If it was a crime I'd
> been convicted of that was later expunged I would list it though;
> perhaps that is what you're referring to?
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 14:54, Tim Bogart <timbogart@yahoo.com
> <mailto:timbogart@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> No. Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough. No, they did not
> terminate people for having a brush with the law and being found
> innocent or acquitted or for whatever reason, were not convicted.
> They terminated those people for *FAILING TO DISCLOSE* their brush
> with the law, and the accompanying details on the application.
> Understandable in my mind.
>
> Tim...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* JD Austin <jd@twingeckos.com <mailto:jd@twingeckos.com>>
>
> *To:* Main PLUG discussion list
> <plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> <mailto:plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>>
> *Sent:* Thu, September 16, 2010 2:48:46 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: OT - Explaining periods of unemployment on an application
>
> Hold on.. they fired people that were ACQUITTED of a crime? That
> seems a bit too far :(
> If a court can't find them guilty how can an employer?
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 14:38, Tim Bogart <timbogart@yahoo.com
> <mailto:timbogart@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> I like your response. At a company with which I worked for many
> years, many years ago used to send me email on a daily basis
> listing folks who had been terminated. Of those, many were
> terminated because of falsehoods on their applications. And of
> those, not nearly, but ALL were due to information omitted
> regarding some crime that the individual had committed. And
> they ran the gambit from robbery to murder. Yes, murder,
> believe it or not. But in fairness, of those, they involved
> folks who had been tried for murder and had been exonerated by
> some means (found not guilty, thrown out due to mistrial or
> other reasons) but the point is that they had concealed the
> facts regarding criminal activities (I mean seriously, how can
> you forget to list something like that, or how can you think it
> somehow doesn't qualify as something a potential employer would
> not be interested?) that are easily checked.
>
> Tim B.
>
> I'm sticking with Grandpa Jones here...
> "True is stranger than fact."
> Hee-Haw
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> <mailto:PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>
--
-Eric 'shubes'
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)